Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)

9. Let me know when you get to the serious part . . .

Reply to krispos42 (Original post)

Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:28 AM

Feb 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's seriously discuss smart guns [View all] krispos42 Jan 2016 OP

Most gun technology seems to trickle into the civilian realm ... JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2016 #1

the military would never Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #3

very clear and well written Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #2

Thank you krispos42 Jan 2016 #4

Nicely laid out - saving it for future discusssions DonP Jan 2016 #5

A fingerprint function on a firearm would pretty much stop me from shooting. My fingerprints Waldorf Jan 2016 #6

If there are ever any popular smart guns... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #7

Ummm, looks like no takers Chief DonP Feb 2016 #8

Let me know when you get to the serious part . . . flamin lib Feb 2016 #9

Sorry you can't grasp his point, too detailed for a bumper sticker? DonP Feb 2016 #10

Would you trust skydiving with a parachute as reliable as your smartphone's fingerprint scanner? krispos42 Feb 2016 #11

you guys sound just like Lee Iocacca when seat belts were suggested for flamin lib Feb 2016 #12

And you guys sound just like the liars back in the day... beevul Feb 2016 #13

Seat belts are mechanically simple like guns hack89 Feb 2016 #14

facts like that do not matter Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #15

what is the misread or Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #16

You're avoiding the question, which means you don't like the answer. krispos42 Feb 2016 #17

bet you get silence Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #18

Show me a car like that. flamin lib Feb 2016 #19

My point exactly. It doesn't exist because nobody would buy it. krispos42 Feb 2016 #20

A guy walks into a bar... beevul Feb 2016 #21

Thank you. krispos42 Feb 2016 #22

Thats because it IS a serious point of discussion. beevul Feb 2016 #33

The car doesn't exist because flamin lib Feb 2016 #25

Not really discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #26

We're not talking about "fly by wire". We're talking about biometric identification. krispos42 Feb 2016 #27

The title of the OP is " Let's seriously discuss smart guns" flamin lib Feb 2016 #28

Armatix tried to sell their gun in Europe gejohnston Feb 2016 #29

Read the friggin article, will ya? nt flamin lib Feb 2016 #30

I did gejohnston Feb 2016 #34

Well, do you still maintain that smart guns are unreliable and too slow to be of use? nt flamin lib Feb 2016 #36

I don't believe I said that gejohnston Feb 2016 #37

Here's another that is tested, proven and being looked at by police. flamin lib Feb 2016 #31

looked-at != adopted-by Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #32

Doesn't mean they know how it works. DashOneBravo Feb 2016 #35

a little C code in the subject line? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #38

That car would never be built because no reasonable manufacturer would want the liability. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #24

*Outstanding* OP krispos42! pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #23